Christians: If the devil is the ultimate deceiver, then do you think...?

Question

...he tampers with scientific tests/results as well? I should think so. He probably planted all these false fossil records all over the planet too, not to mention playing around with carbon dating methods. Nothing is beneath him after all.

Answer 1

What fossil records? The fossil records don't show evolution, they show that everything seems to come on the scene already well developed. Have you ever heard of the cambian explosion, the so-called, biological big bang. Everything comes upon the scene at that point already well developed with no developing forms before that. Darwin understood that well and it troubled him. Back in 1859 you had no pre-cambrian fossils that had been found. So what you had was already well developed fossils that showed up in the cambrian era and nothing before that. That certainly didn't fit evolution. Darwins explanation was that the pre-cambrian fossils were destroyed because they were so deep and the pressure from the soil above and also the heat, being nearer the earths mantle, destroyed them. But that explanation no longer holds because since then we have found some pre-cambrian fossils but they are so basic, such as bacteria and blue-green algae, that you couldn't have had evolution from these basics to already developed forms without some transitional forms.
And where are all the transitional forms? We have never found one transitional form that everybody seems to agree is a transitional form. We've never even found one that all the evolutionist agree on. Darwin was only too aware of that problem also. He said "they're out there by the millions.....you should be stumbling over them as you walk out your back door"(speaking about transitional forms). That's a quote from Darwin. His explanation as to why they hadn't found them yet was that archeology was in it's infant stages at that time. He predicted that after he was dead they would find them by the millions. But here we are 150 years later and they still haven't found any. Stephan J. Gould who was a Harvard paleontolgist and one of the top evolutionists in the world until he died a few years ago said this:"there's a trade secret among the paleontologists of the world.....namely, that the transitional forms don't exist". My question would be...why is it a trade secret? If the evidence doesn't show evolution why don't they tell the world.
As far as carbon dating is concerned, carbon dating for the most part does not date fossils. Fossils, for the most part, are imprints of former living creatures in rocks. They're not living creatures, they're imprints of living creatures. They're rocks.. Even the bones they find are petrified which make them rock-like also. To date with carbon dating you have to have something that has carbon in it. It's got to be something that was living. Also, since carbon has a half life of 5700 years, it would have to have been living recently. Anything over 200,000 years would not have any carbon left. Most of those fossils are said to be(by the evolutionists) over 200,000 years.
There are at least 50 ways to date the age of the earth. Only 5 of them give very old ages: 1)carbon 14 2)potassium-argon 3) Uranium 238-lead 206 4)Uranium 235-lead 207 5)rubidium-strontium. Yet these 5 are the ones they use and not the other 45(or more). Because if you believe in evolution you must have massive amounts of time. That's the whole idea of evolution. It says "given enough time plus chance, anything is possible". But when you've got a secular humanist bunch of elites running the media, education system, courts and everything else, "possible" soon becomes "plausible" and "plausible" soon becomes "the favored theory" and the favored theory soon becomes "fact". It doesn't matter that you don't have one iota of evidence to prove it. Remember, we're not educating nowadays in our schools, we're indoctrinating.
Those 5 radio-metric dating methods come up with widely differing dates. They're not accurate at all. In 1997, they found some wood embedded inside the Hawkesbury sandstone near Sydney, Australia. Naturally, the wood should have been older than the sandstone if the sandstone encompassed the wood since the wood had to be there first and then the sandstone engulfed it in whatever way that happened. When they carbon dated the wood it came out to be 33,000 years old. When they dated the sandstone, using potassium-argon it came out to be 250-300 million years old. They asked the lab(here in the U.S.) to check for contamination and there was no contamination. How could wood 33,000 years old be totally enbedded in rock 250-300 million years old. The radio metric methods give ages that are totally unreliable. Why do they use them? Because they give old ages and the others don't and without long ages there is no such thing as evolution. evolution is a religion just like christianity(just read Ann Coulters new book'Godless'). Evolution, like christianity, must ultimately be accepted by faith.
But christianity is faith based upon reason. Evolution is just blind faith based upon nothing. It's no surprise that Gould and Niles Eldridge eventually gave up on darwinian evolution and started a new theory called 'Punctuated Equilibrium', a theory which Richard Goldschmidt(also an evolutionist) called the 'hopeful monster theory' a name he gave to it in derision. He descibed it by saying that a reptile once laid an egg and, VIOLA, out popped a bird. If you believe that, I've got some swampland I'd like to sell you....ON PLUTO.
You don't need the devil to deceive(as you put it) the world into believing in evolution. All you need is a few secular humanists elite who control everything(especially the schools) and indoctrinate everyone from the time they are knee-high to a grass hopper without ever allowing the massive evidence against evolution to be shown. People will grow up believing it without ever questioning it.
Everywhere you look in the universe there's design. Where there's design there must be a designer. That's just common sense. The idea of life coming from dead chemicals is incredible. You have enough information in your DNA to fill a stack of encyclopedia sized books from here to the moon and back 500 times. If I was flying over the beach in a helicopter and I saw written on the sand" go Lakers beat Celtics", there is 2 ways that could have happened: 1)the wind and the waves and random chance created it 2) some lakers fans wrote it on the sand. Which makes more sense? That writing on the sand is information. Information never comes from dead chemicals. Isn't it much easier to just believe the design you see in the universe and come to a common sense conclusion that the designer created the universe as it says in Genesis 1:1?
Contrary to all the jibberish you hear in todays secular humanist public schools about how we used to believe a lot of myths in the bible and then science came along and proved the bible wrong.....on the contrary, the bible does not conflict with science. It conflicts with evolution, which is not science. Even though the bible is not a scientific book, when it does speak on science it is accurate and that starts with Genesis 1:1...."in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". To quote Robert Jastrow:

"This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth... [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

- Robert Jastrow
(God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. Professor Jastrow was the founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute, now director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory.)

PS---Robert Jastrow is not a christian.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/

Answer 2

We all have a tendency to make things fit what we want them to say or be. I really believe that if people would just stop arguing about things that they can't prove Like carbon dating and the bones of animals that are different than what we have today. Think about man is creating simulated diamonds Ruby's and other gems just by putting it under a lot of pressure . Well how much pressure was there when the entire world was covered by water. DAAA! this could easily explain the changes in the carbon. People and animals continue to change from one generation to another . plagues and pestilence have caused drastic shifts in the appearance and development of mankind. Medicare and technology have changed how long we live and the food we eat have made a great difference in how tall we are and how fat we are so I don't see what the big fuss is about. lets all get serious about finding a cure for aids or leukemia or Poverty or hunger. lets spend that money developing a safer healthier world . lets love one another and help each other instead of always trying to prove that we don't need God. or that he doesn't exist. And don't be so flippant about the devil because he has been tricking people for as long as mankind and woman kind has been on this earth.

Answer 3

No, that's the work of the scientists who are hellbound (no pun intended) on proving science over the Bible.

Sorry for you! I have done my own research. i also used to doubt it.
Carbon dating is unaccurate, despite what scientists say. The effects of a collosal flood have completely changed many of the results that can be derived from carbon dating. A flood like the Flood of Genesis. carbon dating showed that rock formed from volcanic activity 106 years before the date of the test showed the rock to be thousands of years old. Npt the first case I have heard or seen.

Fossils prove sh!t! You don't have any idea how many times scientists have made mistakes. One of the most famous "discoveries were of an animal in the "link" of evolution. it turned out to be a horse! (600 000 years before mammals were supposed to have evolved, yet they were in te same sediment layer as other "prehistoric" animals. ha ha!

When scientists today make a mistake, they brush it under the carpet. When they make a "dicovery", everyone knows about it, before it is even proved.

There are Christian scientists too. many were converted through scientific discoveries! Charles Darwin even denied his theory at his deathbed!

Believe it or not DNA proves the Bible. i am not going to get into that discussion. it takes way too long. Just research pure DNA strands and where they originate from! You may be surprised. Even National Geographic were shocked. it was in the Bible!

Answer 4

I am an evangelical, born again 1974 and a minister of the gospel.
Your line of reasoning is in error. The devil is a nuisance, but he is not all powerful.
In this direction lies madness. If he can plant millions of fossils, why couldn't he just alter your brain and make all you see and hear an illusion as well? It's absurd.
Belief in Creationism is not needed for Salvation, lack of it will not bar you from Heaven, having it will not make you a better Christian.
Forget it, it don't matter.

Answer 5

There go those Christians again mixing up their deities good and bad again.
SATAN was created to be the Ultimate deceiver. to lead mankind's souls away from the laws of the Creator. SATAN was created for this purpose.
The Devil is one of the rulers of the different levels of HELL.And his likeness is a cobbled together piece of fiction made by the Christian church form different religions that are out of favor with the church. The Gods of one religion are the devils of the next.
As many upheavals as have been recorded and found with modern scientific equipment it is no wonder that things can get mixed up in layers where you would not expect them to be.
And as another answer said all things have to have the permission of the CREATOR OF ALL THINGS before they can do anything.

Answer 6

The devil may deceive people but doesn't create life. Therefore I cant see much deception there but test of carbon dating has been proven wrong under many circumstances.Science is only as good as mans understanding which any scientist will tell you has its limitations. If a man reduces science to its total understanding of the begining of life it starts after the big bang which is not the begining of everything it only leads to more questions such as what caused the big bang? how did something come from nothing? science does not answer all of mankinds questions.

Answer 7

I think he is deceiving the whole world because he knows the time is getting closer for him to be destroyed. The fossils around the world is true, it just tells us that 4400 years ago there was a great flood that destroyed everything accept Noah and his family. Carbon dating has been proven incorrect many times. They carbon dated a penguen the other day, a live penguin and tests showed it was millions of years old, so yes, carbon dating doesnt work

Answer 8

To say that nothing is beneath him is a false statement. He is not God or like God, he is a created being. He is a fallen angel and cannot be beyond time, namely he cannot go back in time. However, he can decieve people and tamper w/ things people see or think they see. But, God's powers are definitely far above those of the devil, so the devil is also limited.

Answer 9

Satan can also appear to do 'good', That is why the Bible can call him...an angel of light. Light being a euphenism for sound knowledge.
(2 Corinthians 11:14) And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light.

Answer 10

Carbon dating can't be used to measure things over 1000's of years old. You have that mistaken with radioactive dating.